I have long feared the day would come when US pork injected with leanness-inducing additives would be allowed into Taiwan.
In 2012, the Codex Alimentarius Commission — established in 1963 to protect the health of consumers, ensure fair practices in the global food trade and promote coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations — set the permitted limits for residue amounts of ractopamine, a leanness inducing chemical. For pork and beef products, this limit was set at 10 parts per billion (ppb) for meat and fat, 40ppb in liver and 90ppb in kidneys.
These standards were a long time in coming: The commission spent many years debating the correct levels, and it took several votes before they were successfully passed with 69 votes for and 67 against. According to a European Food Safety Authority report issued then, leanness-inducing chemicals can affect people with cardiovascular disease, and given the lack of current studies on ethnic groups, or on sufficiently large sample sizes, there is inadequate scientific evidence that these additives have no adverse health effects.
Three years have passed, and still many countries — including major livestock producing countries such as China, Russia and all the EU member states — are reluctant to accept the adoption of these international standards. That is, the use of this additive is actually banned in about 70 percent of the swine raised for global consumption. Its use is permitted in the US, but is it used in all beef and pork livestock in the US? Of course not.
It is not used in US beef and pork products bound for the EU, and neither is it allowed to be present as residue in pork products exported to Taiwan. Are there leanness-inducing chemical residues in the pork and beef products Americans eat? Again, of course not. US consumers can select additive-free pork products in their supermarkets.
About 20 years ago, these additives were used in pig rearing in Taiwan. While the pigs were much leaner, they did exhibit some adverse effects in the rearing process, manifested in some unusual sitting postures. Something was evidently wrong with the animals, and they would occasionally keel over when at auction. This was extremely embarrassing in Taiwan, a country that prides itself on its animal husbandry. So does this mean that now we will be using leanness-inducing additives, even though they were banned some time ago? Heaven only knows whether the authorities have laid out any requirements, because the public certainly has not been privy to any.
More adventurous countries might want to permit the use of additives such as ractopamine in the spirit of democratic freedom, but what are the repercussions for smaller economies that, under the political realities of international trade, are reliant on other countries? Does it mean that they have to allow certain products to clear customs, only to subject them to strict controls once in the country? Which way will Taiwan go? Will it just do what it did with the import of US beef, and announce that there are no health concerns?
There are those who say that allowing the import of US pork with leanness-inducing additives is simply a necessary evil to facilitate international alignment. Is Taiwan required to swallow a necessary evil for the sake of international alignment? Or should it choose a necessary good for the sake of caution when it comes to health? Or is there another option? One that will be able to simultaneously address the economic aspect, as well as the health of Taiwanese?
Chou Chin-cheng is the dean of the School of Veterinary Medicine at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath